Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
J O H N S E N, Judge:
DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction.
1 "We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to sustaining the convictions." State v. Boozer, 221 Ariz.
601, 601, 2 (App. 2009).
2
STATE v. JONES
Decision of the Court
3
STATE v. JONES
Decision of the Court
B. Due Process.
8 Jones argues that the superior court violated his due process
rights because it "denie[d] common law," "is not a court of record," and
"tampered with the jury by giving instructions to the jury on how to
interpret the law."
C. Jury Nullification.
12 Jones argues that the court denied him due process when it
sustained an objection to his comment during opening statement that the
jury has the power and the right to jury nullification, and commented, "Mr.
4
STATE v. JONES
Decision of the Court
Jones, I sustained the objection. You have to say something else. They do
not have the power of jury nullification."
D. Grand Jury.
14 Jones argues that his due process rights were violated by the
grand jury proceedings, because the deputy county attorney failed to
summon him to testify and asked leading questions of the testifying
investigator, suborning perjury, and the investigator committed perjury.
5
STATE v. JONES
Decision of the Court
written request," Ariz. R. Crim. P. 12.6, Jones does not cite any such written
request. Finally, because Jones failed to ensure the transcript of the grand
jury proceedings was forwarded to this court on appeal, this court has no
record to review Jones's arguments that the deputy county attorney
suborned perjury and the investigator committed perjury. See State v.
Cramer, 174 Ariz. 522, 524 (App. 1992).
CONCLUSION